Retroactive correction of logbook errors

Are there any accepted conventions for retroactively correcting logbook
errors?

I recently realized that I should not have included any "actual" (IMC) time
recorded in my logbook as PIC time while I was an instrument student.

Any suggestions for correcting this error? Rather than making messy
corrections and recalculating page totals, how about adding a "corrective"
(new) entry?

"Marty Ross" wrote:

Are there any accepted conventions for retroactively correcting logbook
errors?

No. nothing that's totally standard. I line through the
mistake and write in the correction.

I recently realized that I should not have included any "actual" (IMC) time
recorded in my logbook as PIC time while I was an instrument student.

Why not? Were you sole manipulator of the controls and
rated in the aircraft? If so, it's loggable 61.51(e) PIC
time.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"blanche cohen" wrote in message ...
I just make the correction -- line thru the old stuff and write
the new stuff nearby. If that's not convenient, then white-out.
Or any color correction fluid (now that it's made in multiple
colors!)

I need green-out because that's what color my log book pages are :-)

"Cub Driver" wrote in message ...

I like to initial any change I make. Makes it look more like a ship's
log, which is an official document that must be written in ink and
can't be altered except under oath, as it were.

You probably have to sign a ships log, so initialling the correction
makes sense (same thing used to be true of commercial radio logs).
There's no requirement that the pilot ever sign his own log book.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:50:31 -0400, Todd Pattist
wrote in Message-Id:
:

I recently realized that I should not have included any "actual" (IMC) time
recorded in my logbook as PIC time while I was an instrument student.

Why not? Were you sole manipulator of the controls and
rated in the aircraft? If so, it's loggable 61.51(e) PIC
time.

Of course, that's not true for student pilots. While not unheard of,
most IFR students are not student pilots. However, all student pilots
do receive instrument training.



http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C?OpenDocument
Sec. 61.51

(4) A student pilot may log pilot-in-command time only when the
student pilot--
(i) Is the sole occupant of the aircraft or is performing the
duties
of pilot of command of an airship requiring more than one pilot
flight
crewmember;
ii) Has a current solo flight endorsement as required under Sec.
61.87
of this part; and
(iii) Is undergoing training for a pilot certificate or rating

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Larry Dighera wrote:

Were you sole manipulator of the controls and
rated in the aircraft? If so, it's loggable 61.51(e) PIC
time.

Of course, that's not true for student pilots.

Well, technically, it *is* true for student pilots. You
missed the "rated in the aircraft" part of my statement.
It's true, because I said only pilots who were *both* "sole
manipulator of the controls" *and* "rated in the aircraft"
could log the time, and no student is "rated in the
aircraft."
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:19:39 -0400, Todd Pattist
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Were you sole manipulator of the controls and
rated in the aircraft? If so, it's loggable 61.51(e) PIC
time.

Of course, that's not true for student pilots.

Well, technically, it *is* true for student pilots.

I would define a Student Pilot as one who holds a Student Pilot
Certificate ONLY, no Airmans Certificate. (I'll use that definition
throughout my reply.)

A student who holds _only_ a Student Pilot Certificate can NOT log PIC
time in actual instrument conditions, because FAR 61.65(e)(4)(i)*
requires him to be the sole occupant of the aircraft to log PIC time.
Can we can agree, that a competent CFI(I) would not permit a student
pilot to solo in IMC (nor under a vision restricting device)?

If a Student Pilot found himself in IMC while soloing, he might be
able to log that actual instrument time as PIC time, but in all
likelihood, posthumously. :-)

You missed the "rated in the aircraft" part of my statement.

Not really.

I wasn't disagreeing with your statement. I was just attempting to
provide additional, complementary information.

It's true, because I said only pilots who were *both* "sole
manipulator of the controls" *and* "rated in the aircraft"
could log the time, and no student is "rated in the
aircraft."

When you state, "it's true," the antecedent of your use of the pronoun
'it' is ambagious.

If you are referring to Student Pilots logging IMC PIC time, that is
prohibited by regulation FAR 61.65(e)(4)(i), because they can't solo
in IMC. I am not aware of a requirement for Student Pilots to be
"rated in the aircraft" to be permitted to log PIC time. Indeed,
Student Pilots' solo time is permitted by regulation to be logged as
PIC time.

If you're referring to pilots who hold an _Airmans_ _Certificate_ and
are receiving instrument instruction from a CFII, indeed FAR
61.65(e)(1)(i) does permit logging PIC time when the pilot is sole
manipulator of the controls of the aircraft in which he is rated.
However, such a pilot is not a Student Pilot.

It's not entirely clear from Marty Ross' article whether he held a
Student Pilot Certificate or Airmans Certificate during the time he
accrued the actual instrument experience to which he was referring.
Here's what he said:

I recently realized that I should not have included any "actual"
(IMC) time recorded in my logbook as PIC time while I was an
instrument student.

While an Instrument Student training for an IFR rating must hold an
Airmans Certificate, a Student Pilot does receive instrument
instruction, but he can not log it as PIC time (unless he is solo).

It appears, that implicit in your reply (indicating that instrument
PIC time is loggable) was the presumption that the student held an
Airmans Certificate (otherwise he wouldn't be rated in the aircraft).
I chose to mention the regulations effective for students who do not
hold an Airmans Certificate. You seem to have erroneously interpreted
that as disagreeing with your statement, and failed to note that
Student Pilots need not be "rated in the aircraft" to log PIC time.

Misunderstandings are common when ambiguities are not addressed, and
articles are not thoroughly read and comprehended. I know it happens
to me.

(Of course, this entire discussion is limited to Aircraft Category
operations, and ignores Part 141 training.)


* For convenient reference, here's a link to the regulations:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Larry Dighera wrote:

I would define a Student Pilot as one who holds a Student Pilot
Certificate ONLY, no Airmans Certificate.

So would I.

A student who holds _only_ a Student Pilot Certificate can NOT log PIC
time in actual instrument conditions,

I agree.

because FAR 61.65(e)(4)(i)*
requires him to be the sole occupant of the aircraft to log PIC time.
Can we can agree, that a competent CFI(I) would not permit a student
pilot to solo in IMC (nor under a vision restricting device)?

Yes.

If a Student Pilot found himself in IMC while soloing, he might be
able to log that actual instrument time as PIC time, but in all
likelihood, posthumously. :-)

Agreed

You missed the "rated in the aircraft" part of my statement.

Not really.

I wasn't disagreeing with your statement. I was just attempting to
provide additional, complementary information.

It's true, because I said only pilots who were *both* "sole
manipulator of the controls" *and* "rated in the aircraft"
could log the time, and no student is "rated in the
aircraft."

When you state, "it's true," the antecedent of your use of the pronoun
'it' is ambagious.


"It" referred to my statement that you can log PIC when
rated in the aircraft and sole manipulating the controls
under 61.51(e)(1). Since a student is not rated in the
aircraft, he can't log PIC (under 61.51(e)(1))even when
manipulating the controls. You said "Of course, that's not
true for student pilots." and I responded it was a
technically true statement for student pilots as well as
non-students. Applied to students, they can't log because
they are not rated. Applied to rated pilots, they can log
because they are rated.

If you are referring to Student Pilots logging IMC PIC time, that is
prohibited by regulation FAR 61.65(e)(4)(i), because they can't solo
in IMC.

Agreed.

I am not aware of a requirement for Student Pilots to be
"rated in the aircraft" to be permitted to log PIC time.

They are required to be rated if they want to log under
61.51(e)(1), which they can't do, since by definition they
aren't rated in any aircraft.

Indeed,
Student Pilots' solo time is permitted by regulation to be logged as
PIC time.

We weren't discussing solo for students, we were discussing
instrument instruction during which a non instrument rated
person is sole manipulating the controls. The rated pilot
can log it and the non-rated student cannot, which is what I
said from the first .

If you're referring to pilots who hold an _Airmans_ _Certificate_ and
are receiving instrument instruction from a CFII, indeed FAR
61.65(e)(1)(i) does permit logging PIC time when the pilot is sole
manipulator of the controls of the aircraft in which he is rated.
However, such a pilot is not a Student Pilot.

Agreed. We don't disagree about the FAR's at all - not now
or in any of our posts, as far as I can see.

It's not entirely clear from Marty Ross' article whether he held a
Student Pilot Certificate or Airmans Certificate during the time he
accrued the actual instrument experience to which he was referring.

Agreed, but regardless, my original statement was true. He
can log it as PIC if he's rated in the aircraft and was sole
manipulator of the controls.

It appears, that implicit in your reply (indicating that instrument
PIC time is loggable)

I didn't say instrument PIC time was loggable. I said it
was loggable under two conditions 1) rated, 2) sole
manipulating controls. You said that wasn't true for
students. I said it was. It was an extremely minor point.

was the presumption that the student held an
Airmans Certificate (otherwise he wouldn't be rated in the aircraft).

As far as I know, a Student Pilot Certificate issued under
61.81 et seq. is an "Airman's Certificate," but that does
not make the student rated in any aircraft. If he held any
other certificate, he was not a Student Pilot.

I chose to mention the regulations effective for students who do not
hold an Airmans Certificate.
You seem to have erroneously interpreted
that as disagreeing with your statement, and failed to note that
Student Pilots need not be "rated in the aircraft" to log PIC time.

I never said, implied or believed that students can't log
PIC time. We were engaged in discussing the conditions
under which the sole manipulator of controls in actual IMC
could log time. I simply said that it could be logged under
the 61.51(e)(1) two conditions 1) rated, 2) sole
manipulating controls, and referring to my comment you said
"Of course, that's not true for student pilots." which I
took minor umbrage to, since it's true of students as well
as non-students. Of course there are other ways a student
pilot can log PIC time, but my statement was and is true.

Misunderstandings are common when ambiguities are not addressed, and
articles are not thoroughly read and comprehended.

True.

I know it happens
to me.

I noticed. :-)
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:14:35 -0400, Todd Pattist
wrote in Message-Id:
:

It was an extremely minor point.

I would characterize it as pedantic to the point of being
McNicollesque. :-)


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:14:35 -0400, Todd Pattist

It was an extremely minor point.

I would characterize it as pedantic to the point of being
McNicollesque. :-)

I must say I actually expected an accusation such as that
when I wrote the two sentence comment. Sometimes I just get
into one of those pedantic moods :-)
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.